: : : : : : : : : : : : Only yesterday I read the report of a police interview in which the accused admitted to being 'economical with the truth' - in fact, she was not being 'economical', she was being 'interpretive' of the meaning of a question.

: : : : : : : : : : : : At the risk of offending those that appear to believe that the human race continues through widespread immaculate conception, I shall ask a question with sexual overtones without apology:

: : : : : : : : : : : : Politicians do come up with some of the most memorable, after all.

: : : : : : : : : : : I remember Clinton saying that "he did not have sexual relations" with *her*, but she did have sexual relations with *him*. A fine line indeed.

: : : : : : : : : : I know that comedians and political detractors have joked and derided the use of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.". But, you know if I had done that sort of cavorting with a woman I would not have dignified the contacts by calling them "sexual relations". "Sexual relations" are good. Kinky foolishness may be fun but it is still just "kinky foolishness".

: : : : : : : : : In the UK, a member of Parliament can have some form of punitive action taken against him if he directly accuses any other member of being a liar during a debate within the House of Commons. The phrase "I suggest that the honourable gentleman is being economical with the truth" has become over recent years the customary euphemistic means of doing exactly that.

: : : : : : David FG referred to 'economical with the actualité' as being pretentious. I agree. (And it's so ridiculous I like it too, think I'll use it some time.) However, just the original term you've queried, 'economical with the truth' is equally pretentious. It's either a sarcastic, watered down, or really 'nice' way of saying someone lied. As for Clinton's one way sexual relationship - hmmm.... wonder how he pulled that one off (oops, didn't mean to say it that way).

: : : : : I'm rather fond of the delicate art of verbal savagery. There's a fine tradition going back many years. I was reading the book "Longitude" a few years back and was struck by how similar the ins are outs of the English political classes were, then and now. Britian is the only place I know where the simple phrase, "Yes, well." said with slightly lifted eyebrow can sum up everything from Enron to the musical pretentions of Celine Dion more devastatingly than almost any other comment one can make. It's so elegant and compact, yet everyone knows precisely what you mean by it. Love it. Miss it.

: : : : Damn that loose-lipped Camel... revealing long-held Brit secrets in a public forum. However, since the cat is now out of the bag, I can confirm that single eyebrow-raising and understatement are taught behind closed doors in every major British public school. I am proud to have passed "summa cum laude" in my final year, winning the Roger Moore Litotes cup.

: : : Yes, well.
: : : How many duplicates of that cup are issued, did you say?
: : : (Sorry. Had to test it out.)

: : *raises eyebrow*

: I qualified for the Roger Moore Institute as a child prodigy - in front of guests, my mother once said "I've got more intelligence in my little finger than you'll ever have!" to which my "Really?" accompanied by raised eyebrow was a master-stroke equal to the goal by Rooney against Arsenal whilst he was still of school age and they were champions-elect.

: Over the years my "Really?" and the more down-market "Yeah - right!" have laid waste to countless opponents.

: Yeah?

: Really.

: Right!

:
: L

Is there really a Roger Moore Institute and is the Roger Moore I'm thinking of? And if so, what does it represent?